Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-07-07

Of such further answer that it will ap
pear by reading the rule in question
that its rhraseology was such as to
leave this respondent in doubt as to the
real meaning and object Of said ruic,
and that his said former answer was
intended to be responsive in all respects
to said rule, and was 30 responsive, as
he and his counsel then understood il
and that there was not a word in said
answer intended to be irresponsive or
evasive. or in any sense wanting in
strict decorum or propriety; but still.
desiring to conform as far as practicable,
and consistently with the truth of the
case. to the views indicated in said
opinion. again respectfully SAYS, what
be has already distinctly stated in the
answer referred to, that he and his
associate, Mr.. Scott, in preparing and
reading Mt the sale the paper
which forms the subject of this
rule. did not intend any con-
tempt of this court or its decree,
or any resistance or obstruction TO its
execution, either actual, technical, 'or
constructive and that they neither did
or contemplated anything but what
seemed to them fairness and justice re-
quired in giving due notice to those
present of the then legal status of the
case and further, because on the fall
est consideration they sincerely be-
lievsd that their client, Nr. Todd,
might, in the absence Of such notice,
impair or waive the rights which had
accrued to him or which might accrue
to him thereafter il he remained silent
and yet became bidder at the resale
and that they deemed this especially
necessary and essential inasmuch osilo
statement was made by the commits
sioners or their agents, and the resale
was being proceeded with as if no in
teryening circumstance had occurred.
This respondent deems it his duty
again to say, as he has already said
that neither he nor his associate, Mr.
Scott with all dse respect to the
Court, have committed any contempt
in law, actual or technical, in the prem
ises, yet out OF respect to the Court
and in Difference to its opinion, they
again declare that no such contempt
was intended by either of them, and
all that they did was in the honest ex-
ercise o, what they supposed 10
be their legal rights in the man
ner above stated, and this re-
spondent, having, as he conceives,
made full and complete answer con
forming, as far as trath and propriety
will permit, to the views indicated in
said opinion of the Court, respectfully
asks the same may be received and
filed, and that said rule may be dis
charged. EDWARD Y. CANNON.
July 4, 1887.
Having carefully read and considered
the foregoing answer to the rule against
my associate, Mr.. Cannon, | adopt the
same in every respect as my answer TO
the rule against me, and respectfully |
ask the same may he discharged.
July 4. 1887. ROBERT &. ScoTT.
Having carefully read and consid- |
cred the foregoing answer of my cOun- |
sci, Mr.. Cannon, / adopt the same in
every respect as my answer to the rule
against me, and respectfully ask the
Court that the same may be discharged.
CHARLES J.. TODD.
Sworn 10 before me in open court BY
E. Y. Cannon and Robert q. Scott and
in Office by Charles l.. Todd this 9TH
day of July, 1887.
Copy BENJAMIN H. BERRY,